Who would do a better job of running the USA? Topic

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 10:13:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 9:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 9:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 8:37:00 AM (view original):
1.  You must buy our product
2.  You must use our product at a place we do not regulate
3.  If you cannot fully afford our product, we will help you pay for it


So what is being subsidized?   The kids at the AT&T roundtable can answer this one.

Your pronoun usage is confusing. Maybe intentionally since I doubt you really understand who is doing what.
Maybe you don't understand because you're a dumbfuck?

Yeah, that's it.   Good day.
I see that you didn't clarify who "we" and "our" are. Shocking.
Is it really necessary?

Seriously?

I just assumed you were being an *******.    Do you really not understand?   And that's not me being an *******, it's a serious question.
****, I don't think you do.

You:  US citizens required to participate in ACA
We:  US gov't providing insurance and subsidizing it
Our:  Insurance provided by ACA

Wow.
The US government is providing insurance? So your "our" in all three lines is the federal government?

Yikes.
Is it required by the US government?

Dress it up anyway you want.   It's government mandated, and subsidized, healthcare insurance.  

Do you disagree?
10/2/2013 12:53 PM
Posted by deathinahole on 10/2/2013 12:40:00 PM (view original):
Explain how your thinly disguised euthanasia proposal would work, LogansRunT23
POTY!!!

Run, Runner!!


10/2/2013 12:55 PM
Let me see if I understand this price gouging argument.

You say ACA doesn't solve the problem, so it needs to be repealed in favor of another system that doesn't solve the problem.

Wow.
10/2/2013 1:00 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 10:13:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 9:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 9:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 8:37:00 AM (view original):
1.  You must buy our product
2.  You must use our product at a place we do not regulate
3.  If you cannot fully afford our product, we will help you pay for it


So what is being subsidized?   The kids at the AT&T roundtable can answer this one.

Your pronoun usage is confusing. Maybe intentionally since I doubt you really understand who is doing what.
Maybe you don't understand because you're a dumbfuck?

Yeah, that's it.   Good day.
I see that you didn't clarify who "we" and "our" are. Shocking.
Is it really necessary?

Seriously?

I just assumed you were being an *******.    Do you really not understand?   And that's not me being an *******, it's a serious question.
****, I don't think you do.

You:  US citizens required to participate in ACA
We:  US gov't providing insurance and subsidizing it
Our:  Insurance provided by ACA

Wow.
The US government is providing insurance? So your "our" in all three lines is the federal government?

Yikes.
Is it required by the US government?

Dress it up anyway you want.   It's government mandated, and subsidized, healthcare insurance.  

Do you disagree?
That's not what you said. You said the government is requiring us to by their product. Which is false.

Based on your history and the content of your last few posts, I'd say that your understanding of this subject (and really anything related to how the government works) is extremely poor.
10/2/2013 1:02 PM
Posted by genghisxcon on 10/2/2013 1:00:00 PM (view original):
Let me see if I understand this price gouging argument.

You say ACA doesn't solve the problem, so it needs to be repealed in favor of another system that doesn't solve the problem.

Wow.
That's what he's saying.

Repeal it because it doesn't solve a problem it's not designed to solve so that we can continue not solving the problem.
10/2/2013 1:03 PM
Semantics.    We are required to purchase a government mandated product(or have proof of similar product) and use said product at facilities where costs are not regulated.    But congrats on playing the game in a way that allows you to skirt around any issue.
10/2/2013 1:07 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by genghisxcon on 10/2/2013 1:00:00 PM (view original):
Let me see if I understand this price gouging argument.

You say ACA doesn't solve the problem, so it needs to be repealed in favor of another system that doesn't solve the problem.

Wow.
That's what he's saying.

Repeal it because it doesn't solve a problem it's not designed to solve so that we can continue not solving the problem.
Yeah, it's crazy when people think that solving a problem actually requires solving a problem.
10/2/2013 1:08 PM
My God, you guys are dumb.

Repeal the ACA, and spend the time and money to address/fix the root cause of why healthcare is so much more expensive in the U.S. than in other developed parts of the world.

If healthcare costs are brought under control, the price of healthcare comes down.  If the price of healthcare comes down, then it is more affordable.  Which is the problem that, theoretically, is attempting to be solved.

Shoudl I use smaller words? 
10/2/2013 1:09 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:09:00 PM (view original):
My God, you guys are dumb.

Repeal the ACA, and spend the time and money to address/fix the root cause of why healthcare is so much more expensive in the U.S. than in other developed parts of the world.

If healthcare costs are brought under control, the price of healthcare comes down.  If the price of healthcare comes down, then it is more affordable.  Which is the problem that, theoretically, is attempting to be solved.

Shoudl I use smaller words? 
No.  Just agree that throwing money at problems without actually addressing the root of the problem is the way to go.

Then you're golden.
10/2/2013 1:11 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Semantics.    We are required to purchase a government mandated product(or have proof of similar product) and use said product at facilities where costs are not regulated.    But congrats on playing the game in a way that allows you to skirt around any issue.
No one is required to buy insurance through an exchange.

If you do buy (or have) insurance, you are free to not use it at facilities where costs are not regulated.
10/2/2013 1:13 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by genghisxcon on 10/2/2013 1:00:00 PM (view original):
Let me see if I understand this price gouging argument.

You say ACA doesn't solve the problem, so it needs to be repealed in favor of another system that doesn't solve the problem.

Wow.
That's what he's saying.

Repeal it because it doesn't solve a problem it's not designed to solve so that we can continue not solving the problem.
Yeah, it's crazy when people think that solving a problem actually requires solving a problem.
You're right. We need to get rid of this extra wild card immediately. Not because it's bad for baseball, but because it doesn't solve price gouging.
10/2/2013 1:15 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Semantics.    We are required to purchase a government mandated product(or have proof of similar product) and use said product at facilities where costs are not regulated.    But congrats on playing the game in a way that allows you to skirt around any issue.
No one is required to buy insurance through an exchange.

If you do buy (or have) insurance, you are free to not use it at facilities where costs are not regulated.
Are you saying that we do not have to have insurance?   Assuming you're not(because that's dumb and you obviously missed the part on "proof of similar product" in your haste to be wrong), do you think it's wise to pay for something and not use it?
10/2/2013 1:16 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by genghisxcon on 10/2/2013 1:00:00 PM (view original):
Let me see if I understand this price gouging argument.

You say ACA doesn't solve the problem, so it needs to be repealed in favor of another system that doesn't solve the problem.

Wow.
That's what he's saying.

Repeal it because it doesn't solve a problem it's not designed to solve so that we can continue not solving the problem.
Yeah, it's crazy when people think that solving a problem actually requires solving a problem.
10/2/2013 1:16 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Semantics.    We are required to purchase a government mandated product(or have proof of similar product) and use said product at facilities where costs are not regulated.    But congrats on playing the game in a way that allows you to skirt around any issue.
No one is required to buy insurance through an exchange.

If you do buy (or have) insurance, you are free to not use it at facilities where costs are not regulated.
Can you give us the the address of a U.S. hospital where costs are regulated?
10/2/2013 1:16 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:09:00 PM (view original):
My God, you guys are dumb.

Repeal the ACA, and spend the time and money to address/fix the root cause of why healthcare is so much more expensive in the U.S. than in other developed parts of the world.

If healthcare costs are brought under control, the price of healthcare comes down.  If the price of healthcare comes down, then it is more affordable.  Which is the problem that, theoretically, is attempting to be solved.

Shoudl I use smaller words? 
1) What money? The CBO estimates that the ACA will actually save taxpayers money over the next 11 years.

2) How do you suggest we bring healthcare costs down? I have an idea but I don't think you are going to like it. Though it does involve replacing the ACA with something else.
10/2/2013 1:18 PM
◂ Prev 1...5|6|7|8|9...57 Next ▸
Who would do a better job of running the USA? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2016 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.